1 2026:CGHC:25680 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 5314 of 2026 Jeevan Lal @ Golu Baghel S/o Birjhu Baghel Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No.7 Village Attara, Police Station Hirri, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Hirri, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ___________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For State-Respondent : Mr. Hrishikesh Sharma, PL ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 23/06/2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023. The first bail application was rejected on merits by this Court in MCRC No.8011 of 2025 (Jeevan Lal @ Golu Baghel & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) on 07.11.2025. 2. The applicant has preferred this second bail application for grant VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2026.06.23 16:39:21 +0530 2 of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 167/2025, registered at Police Station Hirri, District- Bilaspur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351, 117(2) and 103(1) of BNS, 2023. 3. As per prosecution case, on 19.06.2025, a dispute arose between the applicants and the complainant party over some issue and the deceased Prayerlal arrived at the spot carrying a sharp edged axe and attacked the present applicant -Jeewan Lal with the intention to cause fatal injuries and subsequently physical altercation took place between them. During the said scuffle, applicant Ramlal armed with a stick assaulted Pyarelel on his head, causing severe injury as a result of which he succumbed to his injuries during medical treatment. Consequently offence was registered against the applicants. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is an innocent and has been falsely implicated in the said case. He further contended that as 9 prosecution witnesses out of total 20 prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and their evidence has materially changed the circumstances of the case. He further contended that the applicant is in jail since 21.06.2025 and the trial will take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 3 5. Learned State Counsel submits that no substantial change in the ground for grant of bail to the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering that there is no substantial change in the ground for grant of bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant stands rejected. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Vasant